The little things that annoy you

[shaunbhoy]

So you are self imposing at 70mph limit with an un-calibrated speedometer that by law muster over-read by at least 3%.

Not "self-imposing", just attempting to adhere to the laws of the land. If that is not fast enough for you, petition your MP.

HTH

You also get satisfaction by holding up over drivers that could be off-duty police, firemen, ambulance men or lifeboat crew on the way to emergencies not to mention doctors or somebody taking an emergency to hospital in their own car.

If they are "off-duty" then they have no special privileges. If they are "on duty", they have flashing lights. Not that hard to distinguish the difference.............assuming you are not trying to control a stiffy as you floor it in your penis extension pretending to be Clarkson or The Stig.

[Paddy]

Hardly any car crashes don't involve a driver.

Excessive speed is indeed a factor in many accidents, but excessive speed is not the same thing as speed itself.

In fact, this appears to indicate that the true risk factor is your speed relative to the average speed of the traffic around you, and it's actually safest to go very slightly faster than the average speed of the traffic stream. This makes a certain amount of sense, as two cars with a relative velocity of zero will not collide whatever speed they happen to be moving at relative to the road.

There is a accident black spot on a dual carriageway near Horsham. It is on an intersection with traffic lights. Drivers jump the lights but the accidents were classed as speed related because they should have stopped. It seems that any accident is record as speed related.

[thunderlizard]

People who insist on posting about their driving prowess.

mm. Combined with the tendency of IT people to wilfully pick up on the least important aspect or interpretation of something (oh no, your mum was killed by a falling PC! Was it Windows or Linux?) it has proved to be a toxic combination.

[Paddy]

Not "self-imposing", just attempting to adhere to the laws of the land. If that is not fast enough for you, petition your MP.

HTH



If they are "off-duty" then they have no special privileges. If they are "on duty", they have flashing lights. Not that hard to distinguish the difference.............assuming you are not trying to control a stiffy as you floor it in your penis extension pretending to be Clarkson or The Stig.

Wrong again SB.

The do not have to be on duty and you don't have to be a policeman...

RT Act Sec 87. Exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits.[ F1 (1)] No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for [F2 fire and rescue authority], ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

[TimberWolf]

Hardly any car crashes don't involve a driver.

Excessive speed is indeed a factor in many accidents, but excessive speed is not the same thing as speed itself.

In fact, this appears to indicate that the true risk factor is your speed relative to the average speed of the traffic around you, and it's actually safest to go very slightly faster than the average speed of the traffic stream. This makes a certain amount of sense, as two cars with a relative velocity of zero will not collide whatever speed they happen to be moving at relative to the road.

Clearly we should all drive slightly faster than average From a personal standpoint, I do feel safer when travelling faster than the traffic around me, as I do when I can brake and accelerate faster than other traffic.

They also note the fourth power law of probability of fatality with speed, with probability of accident and probability of fatality two separate matters, which I think they cover. Of course two cars travelling at zero or small relative velocities could be travelling at any speed relative to the ground, fast or slow; I'd prefer the slower one if there were to be a collision, because it's usually the ground you have to worry about. Trees, lampposts, bridges, etc. One might get hit by a juggernaut while pulling out of a junction, where high relative speed of juggernaut wrt to ground and between vehicles is more of less the same too. I suspect most injuries occur as the result of ground collisions, as vehicles come to an abrupt rest for whatever reason, rather than between vehicles colliding at higher speed. So in that respect collisions at high speeds might appear safer. The article is quite long so I've not made sense of it.

[doodab]

The gist of it is that going too fast for the conditions in a car on the road is dangerous.

[TimberWolf]

The gist of it is that going too fast for the conditions in a car on the road is dangerous.

i.e. speed kills?

[doodab]

i.e. speed kills?

i.e. crashing at speed is more likely to be fatal.

You can of course go very fast indeed and survive the experience. Speed in and of itself doesn't kill.

[SupremeSpod]

Not "self-imposing", just attempting to adhere to the laws of the land. If that is not fast enough for you, petition your MP.

You drive at whatever speed you wish. However, just make sure you're not causing an obstacle and your driving is predictable as I prepare to overtake is all I ask.

[northernladuk]

and it's actually safest to go very slightly faster than the average speed of the traffic stream.

Isn't this going to cause a problem in itself? I do 72, next guy working on the same principle does 75, i speed up to 77 ad infinitum?